If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Microsoft is trying to replace Linux-based government OS in Russia

Microsoft is trying to sabotage huge project around Linux-based "national OS" (an OS, which is used internally for government tasks, but also planned for educational market) in Russia.

This is cut from Google translate:
Development of national software platform can cancel
June 29, 2012

Deputy Minister of Communication Minister may resign because of the intention to replace the head of the Ministry of Communications NNP Linux-based contract with Microsoft.

According to Vedomosti newspaper, citing the statement by the Deputy Minister of Communications of Russia Ilya Massuh, the officer intends to resign because of the intentions of the new head of the Ministry of Communications Nikolay Nikiforov refuse to create a national software platform (GMP) based on Linux.

Resignation Massukh filed in May of this year and said it is the divergence of views with the head of department, who believes the development of RPE unpromising. The deputy minister is sure that this decision puts all governments subject to one of the foreign producers and contributes to domestic producers.

"Global Agreement with vendors for state agencies - a quick victory, which came to nothing lead. Now Russia - one of the few countries in the world that can make their own operating systems. And the conclusion of contracts with foreign companies puts an end to the domestic industry, as giants such as Google and Microsoft, are not interested in the development of Russian programmers "- explained Massukh.

On a possible contract with Microsoft was told by a company representative, who confirmed that, during the St. Petersburg Economic Forum Nikiforov met with President Microsoft International, Jean-Philippe Courtois, and discussed potential cooperation.

By the head of the Ministry of Communications commented on the situation in the social network Twitter, saying that "you should not trust everything so literally that they wrote in the newspaper."

my comment
This government OS is developed on contract base by russian company(they won the contract), which also contributes to Linux and opensource in general.
Availability of Linux-based gov. OS will have huge impact on Linux popularity in Russia, foremost in universities, at schools and among software market.

//
PS.
And you ever thought Microsoft is Linux friendly or can change?? Think again!

PPS.
Somebody email this to Miguel for (tro-) lols.

PPPS.
It is obvious Microsoft offered minister a bribe, because NO COUNTRY would use closed-source OS for internal tasks, unless creator company resides within this country(and falls into its jurisdiction)

A Good Deal of Rubbish...

Quite interesting I find, some of the unfounded conclusions you seem to be making here...

Microsoft is trying to sabotage huge project around Linux-based "national OS" (an OS, which is used internally for government tasks, but also planned for educational market) in Russia.

And this notion comes from.......where again? Nowhere in the article you cited was there even a remote existence of an implication of any action on the part of Microsoft here, yet you seem to refer to it as sabotage. Try to remember that sabotage has to do with intentional action. A decision made by preference, on the sole part of the Russian government, without any apparent acknowledgement by or from Microsoft, is in no way an example of action on the part of the company. I'd caution you on the use of baseless claims. Do you at least have any sources hinting at any action Microsoft has taken here? If so, I'd be interested in seeing them.

It is obvious Microsoft offered minister a bribe[...]

"Obvious" implies there must be a strong indication of something, presumably by a factual basis. Seeing no evidence here, as already mentioned, I'll be moving on...

[...]because NO COUNTRY would use closed-source OS for internal tasks[...]

This happens to be a gross misstatement. Pretty much every country in the world uses at least one closed-source operating system, in addition to using open-source technologies. The two are not contradictory; numerous governmental agencies these days appreciate both types of software, although the general and primary motivation for their choices tends to be not necessarily concerned with the philosophies behind the software, but whatever "works." An example: the White House (at least its website) has servers running on Drupal, and powered by Linux, while the Department of Homeland Security generally uses Windows. The world does not always work the way you want it to, just because you may have a personal opposition to closed-source software.

[...]unless creator company resides within this country(and falls into its jurisdiction).

I'm unsure what to make of this statement. I'd rather not waste my time pointing out the fallacies of assuming that software is only purchased in the countries where the original company resides in...

Overall, while the original article seemed as a nice, simplistic read, your interpretation of it clearly lacks reasonable thought. As always, though, I'm open to your rebuttal...

Overall, while the original article seemed as a nice, simplistic read, your interpretation of it clearly lacks reasonable thought. As always, though, I'm open to your rebuttal...

While I won't disagree with the OP's sentiment (MS=bad, linux=good), I completely agree with your assessment.

If the state of Russia farms out development of a nationally sponsored linux-based OS, that's a good thing for everyone, except MS shareholders.
That MS sales people are doing their best to compete is probably a good thing. The competition helps drive linux development and improves the linux sales pitch.
If MS were to win the contract, I'd be sad. Not too sad though. While I don't want to diminish the value of the Russians' contributions to linux, they are small when compared to the top-10.

Go for it MS. Try not to bribe anyone or break international law, and I'll try not to consider your previous indiscretions when evaluating tech for my clients.

While I won't disagree with the OP's sentiment (MS=bad, linux=good), I completely agree with your assessment.

If the state of Russia farms out development of a nationally sponsored linux-based OS, that's a good thing for everyone, except MS shareholders.
That MS sales people are doing their best to compete is probably a good thing. The competition helps drive linux development and improves the linux sales pitch.
If MS were to win the contract, I'd be sad. Not too sad though. While I don't want to diminish the value of the Russians' contributions to linux, they are small when compared to the top-10.

Go for it MS. Try not to bribe anyone or break international law, and I'll try not to consider your previous indiscretions when evaluating tech for my clients.

F

I don't get it ? What specific linux sales pitch would that be ? Half your software will break every week becuase some asshat breaks the abi by pulling in a updated lib ?

MS will absolutely bribe the Russians, its a culture rife with corruption.

Half your software will break every week becuase some asshat breaks the abi by pulling in a updated lib

Sales pitch:
Easily customizable, and can cater to a wide range of requirements with minimal investment.

When you think go government, think of social services. There's a lot of terminal style data entry. There's libraries, there's socialized medicine (public in canada, VA in US), there's public schools, the DMV, the town clerk/probate. There's the legal system, taxation departments. With the possible exception of BSD, I can't think of a better technology on which to base social services. I personally feel that Linux has a healthier development/software ecosystem than BSD, but wouldn't put a substantial wager on it. In terms of government sponsorship, I also think linux is probably a better philosophical fit.

And this notion comes from.......where again? Nowhere in the article you cited was there even a remote existence of an implication of any action on the part of Microsoft here, yet you seem to refer to it as sabotage. Try to remember that sabotage has to do with intentional action. A decision made by preference, on the sole part of the Russian government, without any apparent acknowledgement by or from Microsoft, is in no way an example of action on the part of the company. I'd caution you on the use of baseless claims. Do you at least have any sources hinting at any action Microsoft has taken here? If so, I'd be interested in seeing them.

Nokia? Enough?

Regarding this deal, IT IS OFFICIAL THAT:

Point 1) minister of communication is to vote FOR MS-based solution AND against already in-development Linux based OS

Point 2) second minister has SIGNED RESIGNATION IF Linux-based government OS program will be closed. MS-W is already used in Russian government FOR AGES, and is hated due to being insecure. They had the source code delivered to them and that didnīt help much!

Point 3) how often do you see ministers threating with resignment just for fun?

If you want to call deputy personally, you can easily FIND his number on internet and ask him away!

You have 1+2+3 as proof, you also have fact that choosing MS over already-in-development Linux-based solution will mean closure for the later.
What do you want more?

Originally Posted by russofris

That MS sales people are doing their best to compete is probably a good thing. The competition helps drive linux development and improves the linux sales pitch.
If MS were to win the contract, I'd be sad. Not too sad though. While I don't want to diminish the value of the Russians' contributions to linux, they are small when compared to the top-10.

Go for it MS. Try not to bribe anyone or break international law, and I'll try not to consider your previous indiscretions when evaluating tech for my clients.

F

Yes, it is GOOD they try to compete, but for government - for any government a non-trusted OS is unacceptable!
This has something to do with informational security and control.

----------

Originally Posted by Thatguy

I don't get it ? What specific linux sales pitch would that be ? Half your software will break every week becuase some asshat breaks the abi by pulling in a updated lib ?

MS will absolutely bribe the Russians, its a culture rife with corruption.

Yes, it is GOOD they try to compete, but for government - for any government a non-trusted OS is unacceptable!
This has something to do with informational security and control.

The word that you are looking for is "untrustworthy". NT tech is untrustworthy in my opinion. It is designed and written by an institution that, by definition, is more interested in its shareholders than its customers. In fact, this was so much the case that they abused their customers and competitors to the point where they committed crimes, were tried, found guilty, and had sanctions placed against them. I'm not sure why companies and people give Microsoft money.

In the case of linux, you don't have to trust the tech, you simply have to find (or create) a trusted organization to customize it.

If you, like me, find MS to be untrustworthy, I would recommend that you find your browser's (and jvm's and OS's) truststore and remove the MS's CAs immediately ( I don't believe Ubuntu trusts them by default, but check /etc/ssl/certs and user/share/ca-certificates just in case, you'll need to use key tool for Java's cecerts file). RHEL/FC uses a single big PEM file called something like ca-bundle.crt IIRC.

MS has been caught on signing "Flame" cyber-espionage software. They put a valid digital dignature on it and it has been used to spy on iranian objects and has been encountered in some other countries as well. Why someone have to trust to MS then? Just to get more trojan horses? Good luck if someone goes to trust to guys like these

MS has been caught on signing "Flame" cyber-espionage software. They put a valid digital dignature on it and it has been used to spy on iranian objects and has been encountered in some other countries as well. Why someone have to trust to MS then? Just to get more trojan horses? Good luck if someone goes to trust to guys like these

Mike Reavy spoke about this briefly. Microsoft did not sign Flame. One of the MS Root CA certs was cryptographically weak. This was exploited by the Flame developer to create an MS Intermediate certificate that chained to the Root. The rogue intermediate signed the trojan.

Again, I agree with the overall sentiment of your post (MS did something wrong, and should not be trusted as a CA), but do not feel that you have presented the facts correctly.